Why try to define things?

First sentence: I think we do, or at least can. My gaffer when I started as an assistant in advertising in the 1970s (the late Colin Glanfield) was notorious for shooting his own interpretation of the (verbal) brief as well as of the visual brief or scamp -- and for the client to choose his version. I've known/met quite a few with the same talent, including (for example) the late Terence Donovan. I fully understand what you mean by " it goes through too many hands and levels of approval to retain much purity", but my argument is that this is true only if the concept and the organization is mediocre to begin with. It doesn't really apply outside advertising or the very lowest levels of e.g. portraiture.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's why you'd choose a big name photographer. If the idea is weak and you are looking for someone with the skill to lift it executionally. Ditto commercials directors and anyone who actually does the final job. But it remains commercial, even if they choose to re-badge it art afterwards. Actually Campaign mag did start a competition for advertising photography as art and I thought it was a great idea. I was a judge and you definitely could appraise it as art. Sadly only lasted a couple of years, but it did quickly get into a rut with social causes stuff always getting marked up by a couple of the judges.